March 6, 2012

Via Instapundit, who notes that Carbonite stock "set a new, and much lower, 52-week low today."

It's so lame of these companies to drop Rush after all the money they invested in building their reputation with people who like Rush. They had ongoing momentum from the accumulated advertising, and now they've nullified it. Where do they get the new customers? They've given in to people who are trying to win a political victory. Those people are happy about it, but are they going to buy that Carbonite stuff? I doubt it.

And, to show just how thick these interconnections really are: Instapundit is telling his readers that if they cancel their cable (to buy a Roku box), then "For added mischief, when you cancel cable, you can tell the company that it’s because of Bill Maher."

Limbaugh was absolutely clear that he was apologizing. The objection, if one wants to object, should be that he was limited and precise about what he was apologizing for, which is only for aiming the words "slut" and "prostitute" at Fluke.

He doesn't apologize for criticizing her for wanting reimbursement for birth control or for testifying at that "hearing" when she had no relevant expertise but was merely telling vague anecdotes about unnamed persons.

I was just listening to Randi Rhodes'(sp?) radio show; she's livid, enraged, and going absolutely bonkers over Rush's slut comments. I've heard Randi many times before, but apparently this latest Rush business is the worst experience of her life, by far - worse than actual rape - no, gang rape.

During her nervous breakdown, however, she did mention that "37" advertisers have dropped Rush, including what she considers the female retail gold standard, J.C.Penny (see, you learn something everyday).

"He doesn't apologize for criticizing her for wanting reimbursement for birth control or for testifying at that "hearing" when she had no relevant expertise but was merely telling vague anecdotes about unnamed persons."

Does anyone else find it odd to see Andy R. calmly offering his opinion on Limbaugh's intemperate language the very same day he calls Santorum "frothy" three times in one thread? That is at least a couple of orders of magnitude beyond "slut", and Andy R. is a contemptible human being.

Ali -- Palin is not a politician. She is a celebrity in politics with a brand and she cares about the Palin brand. She is very good at marketing her brand. She knows that the the Palin brand will suffer when people know for certain that she is not running for president.

Palin is not running for president in 2012. Palin will, in fact, endorse the nominee and give a rather thrilling -- though not prime time -- speech full of red meat for the people who eat it up.

Pretty understandable that you'd rather focus on this than on the demise of the larger Republican "brand" under the leadership of a phony who can't even prevent three challengers from tearing him to bits in March.

As for Limblob, he's pretty sorry to lose the money, and not much else. It's not like people matter to that repulsive narcissistic cretin.

Palin is creating enough mischief in this election. She could say something nice about Romney and 'conservatives' will flock to him. The fact that she is playing coy shows that she is holding a grudge against Romney and his people for what she perceives they did to her.

Part of the Republican attraction to irrationality and obsequiousness translates into an inability to draw crucial distinctions. If Maher got to call all the shots for the Democrats, the way Limblob does for Republicans, then analogies between the two might be meaningful. But he doesn't.

So it's funny watching all that ginned up rage on behalf of the failed effort to equate the two go nowhere useful.

Romney will do fabulous. He has, smartly, focused his campaign on the economy. The economy is a crater. All the goofy shit Obama will try to throw at Romney will roll off among independents. Teflon will eventually be mentioned.

In this vein, it's good that Limbaugh did this stupid thing. Now he knows -- and everybody knows -- to focus on the economy. Social issues do not matter this election except to rabid already-decideds, who can't be bought.

The fact that she is playing coy

You don't seem to understand Palin's brand. She understands her brand. She understands that her base is a certain group of social conservative wannabe libertarians. That's how it is.

Palin can't endorse Romney for this reason. She also can't endorse Santorum because even she understands that he is going to lose, either the nomination or the election.

Also, Palin understands that her endorsement will be worth something. No sense shooting her wad now.

Hey, Ritmo. Tell us about how John Paul Stevens is a conservative and about how all the conservative judges you hate voted for the majority in Kelo. Because, you know, you are against Kelo, so it must be conservatives who wrote it. Now Ginsburg.

Ahhh... you misunderstand the way that dysfunctional "relationship", er, works.

It goes the other way around. Romney is a Republican. Ergo, regardless of what Limblob does or doesn't "do" for him, he must minimize any offense on Limblob's behalf. No Republican can cross the dictates and oh so sensitive sensibilities of Mr Limblob.

Presumably he's only having trouble w/ his current competitors because they're such impressive opposition. If they were gigantic losers, fired (by their own party) pols, and nuts, he (and his massive dough advantage) would blow them out of the water.

Continuing my previous comment -- if Palin is putting brakes on Santorum by announcing that she voted for Newt, that is fine by me. But what do you do with the Dems playing mischief and voting for Santorum as they have done in OH?

Carbonite stock has been falling since August 2011 when it was $17 - because it is losing money, not because it dumped Rush. Rush shot off his mouth and hit his foot. In this era of apologies not worth the breath expelled stating them it is no wonder some think a simple I'm sorry is not a problem ender.

Rush mouthing off: no big deal. Carbonite not wanting to be associated with Rush: no big deal.

(Also, have I said one thing to him? Of course not. He's as irrelevant as Romney, as are his half-baked "ideas". But that doesn't stop him from blowing a gasket to make sure that no one realizes the obvious truth about his puppy of a candidate and the fat, ugly man that controls him).

PBJ -- Romney is having trouble in states with open primaries where Democrats are actively voting for Santorum. Romney is also having trouble is states full of socially conservative Republicans that Obama has absolutely no chance of winning.

I'll add here one final premise for you: Democrats can't vote for other Republicans in the general election.

Though you have shown yourself to have the occasional glimmer of intelligence here, you are generally an idiot and I have long since given up on you, so I don't expect you to be able to draw the obvious conclusion.

It doesn't really matter. Romney will beat Obama. By then you will have moved onto some other thing to "gloat" about. Because that's what stupid people with no critical skills do.

Does anyone else find it odd to see Andy R. calmly offering his opinion on Limbaugh's intemperate language the very same day he calls Santorum "frothy" three times in one thread? That is at least a couple of orders of magnitude beyond "slut", and Andy R. is a contemptible human being.

Frothy is a bigot against the gays and he is being punished for that. I have no problem with punishing people for being bigots. Maybe now frothy and other bigoted people will think twice before they engage in bigotry.

Also calling someone frothy does not entrench a culture of sexism in this country which is used to punish and shame and oppress women.

Does anyone else find it odd to see Andy R. calmly offering his opinion on Limbaugh's intemperate language the very same day he calls Santorum "frothy" three times in one thread? That is at least a couple of orders of magnitude beyond "slut", and Andy R. is a contemptible human being.

Frothy is a bigot against the gays and he is being punished for that. I have no problem with punishing people for being bigots. Maybe now frothy and other bigoted people will think twice before they engage in bigotry.

I'm sure Santorum bleeds from every orifice at Hatman's word.

But Hatman ought to think about how being such an incredible jerk makes him such an incredible ambassador of the LGBTQYDBNUREBGN community.

Romney is having trouble in states with open primaries where Democrats are actively voting for Santorum.

Did Romney make an ad for Ohio with Santorum's robocall in MI begging for Dems to rescue him? If he didn't, he deserves all the trouble he is having in OH. Media would have played it up if they wanted Romney to win, but they don't.

Lionheart says: Rush mouthing off: no big deal. Carbonite not wanting to be associated with Rush: no big deal.

See, that's where I think you're wrong. You obviously don't listen to Rush; he advertised Carbonite in a very personal way -- it wasn't just a pre-recorded commercial. People like my father (dedicated Rush listener) purchased Carbonite solely on the basis of the Rush endorsement, and he is cancelling based on this. I cancelled my upcoming auto-renewal, as well, just because I'm annoyed by the spectacle of it all.

Like Althouse says, it's foolish of Carbonite to do this, because there are likely many more incensed Rush fans cancelling than delighted liberals signing up. The liberal just moves on to hassling the next company on the list.

If Carbonite had signed up X-amount of new users since the brou-ha-ha begin, you can bet your sweet ass we'd know about it -- and that stock wouldn't be falling at such a rate.

I don't mind the notion of boycotts, or particularly mind the notion of voting with your dollars.

But at some point it does seem a bit excessive. How many layers down are you supposed to go? If you boycott a company that stays with Limbaugh, do you boycott someone *else* who doesn't stop accepting advertising from that same company?

On the one hand, does Maher deserve to have people generally go after HBO? He didn't start this fiasco and while he's certainly earned a great deal of bad feeling, and earned it well, he's got to realize that equal treatment is *not* something he wants to experience.

I think that Rush will be fine. He's had people mad at him for a very long time. He's not going to lose listeners who purchase products.

The one thing I will give the leftist tools here is that they are eternal optimists. Stupid, and wrong, but eternal optimists just the same -- and there's something to be said for that.

Look at the facts. For years here, we've been hearing our leftists spout that the Republican message doesn't seem to be translating well with the voting public. Yet state houses and governorships are largely controlled by Republicans. Yet the House is controlled by Republicans. Yet the Senate is virtually a tie. Yet five of the last eight presidential races have been won by Republicans. Yet Obama's favorability rating is perpetually under 50 percent.

Leftists: when, do you suppose, will the Republican seem to be translating well with the voting public?

But Hatman ought to think about how being such an incredible jerk makes him such an incredible ambassador of the LGBTQYDBNUREBGN community.

It's 2012 in America... if someone is anti-gay then they are an idiot or a bigot or both. And this idea that people are on the fence about supporting equality but because I made fun of frothy they just can't do it is silly.

Own your bigotry people. Take some responsibility.

Be proud that you are an anti-gay bigot and say it in public and you can say you're doing it because the guy with the hat on the blog said something not nice and you can live that down for the rest of your life.

Look at the facts. For years here, we've been hearing our leftists spout that the Republican message doesn't seem to be translating well with the voting public. Yet state houses and governorships are largely controlled by Republicans. Yet the House is controlled by Republicans. Yet the Senate is virtually a tie. Yet five of the last eight presidential races have been won by Republicans. Yet Obama's favorability rating is perpetually under 50 percent.

Leftists: when, do you suppose, will the Republican seem to be translating well with the voting public?

Waiting for gimp-master 7 Hemorrhoids to chime in on which transcendent religious truth is the truthiest of them all.

He sounds like the typical, non-believing, shilling for religion Republican. Inauthentic. Almost as phony as Romney but without the claim to an appeal to a religion with a rich, 100-some odd year history.

Love your answer, Ritmo. Tremendously optimistic! I'm sure those Republican state houses with Republican governors will get right on laws forcing people to buy health insurance. Maybe the Republican House can follow suit.

Incidentally, I fully support the Massachusetts health care system. It's stupid, and wrong, but states have plenary power, and can and should implement laws as they see fit.

It's bigoted to hate religious people for being religious. It's also bigoted to hate gay people for being gay. It's also bigoted to hate people of different skin colors for having different skin colors.

You are a bigot because you hate religious people for being religious.

I have never claimed to be religious.I just hate bigotry and bigots. Like anti-religious bigot -- and douchebag -- Andy. Surely, all people of good will agree with me and my stand against bigotry.

I call bullshit. People like you have no principles. You are just trying to provide sympathy for Romney by claiming him as a victim of religious intolerance.

The one thing that's now clearly obvious about a worm like you, is that EVERYTHING that you do has an ulterior motive. You simply have no principles whatsoever.

Makes you look as inauthentic as Romney, which should provide quite the lesson this election season. Will you then agree to be his gimp, in exchange? But then, how does a man with no principles decide on what's fair?

And then Dribbler not only demonstrated that he is uncultured, and further showed that he doesn't have the mental capacity to understand that reasonable people can disagree with him, he went bat-shit insane.

Anyway, I don't feel like staying up all night. I realize that certain people here prefer to take their shots against someone when their back is turned. But Palladian's more honorable than certain others around here. If he wants to take issue with my interest in getting a better understanding of what it takes to maintain self-respect amidst a party full of people who degrade you at every turn, that's up to him. I don't mind a rational discussion with him on personal things like that.

I don't hate them for being BLACK, I think they're dumb. Is thinking people are dumb RACIST?...

Because you wrote the above statement.

Do you really thinking choosing to believe that the Bible wasn't written only by humans and someone being born black is the same thing? Is there some kind of privileged status for people who choose to believe in fairy tales that we shouldn't say something if we think they are wrong?

If someone believes the world is flat I can call them stupid, but if they think God exists because some old book says so I can't call them stupid?

Your reasoning for calling me a bigot toward religious people is because you just swap in the word black and that new statement is wrong? That's the argument? Really?

"Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy."

Religion is a a very highly protected class under the Constitution in this country, on equal footing with skin color. There are sound reasons for that.

Sexual orientation is manifestly not on the same level of protection under the Constitution. There are also sound reasons for that.

I am quite certain that I utterly destroyed your sorry argument, using your own words, showing that you are an anti-religious bigot on exactly a par with the worst racist in the Ku Klux Klan. Face it, dude. You are a bigot. Wail with it. Get yourself a special hood. Be the Grand Dragon of anti-religious bigotry. The mantle is yours for the taking.

PBJ -- I am honored that you went out and found something written by someone else to tell me that you think is meaningful.

The fact that you present it nakedly, without historical context, or without noting that is author was a nutty and incoherent ultra-rationalist (though a fabulous novelist) is surely a mark of your intelligence.

Ahh... What a humble presentation format for explaining the reasoning behind allowing (promoting?) one form of bigotry, but not others.

I'm sure that if one does enough cocaine, one might believe it to be the mother of all political arguments this election season.

Someone on this thread is actually disingenuous enough to believe that his is precisely the sort of arrogance that Republicans need to win. That's it! They're not being arrogant and condescending enough!

"In case you weren't aware, you're calling attention to your insecurity with the idea that others might be able to define you on your own behalf.

I guess if I were a Republican or had to ally myself with them, I'd have that fear as well."

I have no insecurities. I do care about my fellow faggots though, including Andy R., who I disagree with and find objectionable on many levels, but with whom I would happily share a meal at my house and whom, despite his faults is a handsome young man, which counts for a lot in my view, being a man concerned primarily with beauty and aesthetics.

I care that people understand that we faggots are emphatically not a "demographic" nor are we a cohesive group with easily discernable beliefs and prejudices. We (like all so-called "minorities") are simply one of the many variations of the diffuse group known as humans, with our own minds and hearts, capable of beliefs fair and foul.

I dislike tribalism of any sort. I place my faith in the human individual, not in the falsehood of categorization.

I have no qualms voting with Republicans when I feel it is in the best interests of the United States of America, which even in its currently degraded philosophical state is still the best hope for human liberty and individual freedom ever conceived by the mind of man. This is because, as an opponent of tribalism of any sort, I despise the notion that political parties and political affiliations are anything other than temporary conveniences necessary to achieve the specific goal of securing our best chance of liberty. I rail against anyone (such as Santorum or Gingrich or Obama) who, through their words and actions, seem opposed to that goal.

In other words, my identity is not with a party, but with a philosophical ideal of human liberty. Whichever politician can practically serve that ideal best will gain my support. It's a marriage of convenience.

We've strayed. We've almost forgotten what we once were. Any road, no matter how bumpy and crooked, that seems to lead back to that imperfect but sublime ideal, should be travelled without fear or shame.

Your argument is that responding to people's beliefs is the same as responding to their skin color.

My argument is that a bigot is a bigot. And you are a bigot. Drawing a distinction between hating people for skin color and hating people for their religion is just hilarious. What about hating people because of their nationality? That okay? It's not skin color. How about hating people because of their geographic location. That must be okay. It's not skin color.

Further, the fact that you blithely ignored the utter triviality of sexual orientation in constitutional and historical terms, and the tremendous importance of religion, is merely a feather in my cap. You are too stupid to understand what's important.

But what should anyone expect from a bigot? They aren't smart. If they were, they wouldn't be bigots. You are a bigot. Therefore, you must be stupid.

"Your argument is that responding to people's beliefs is the same as responding to their skin color."

No, his argument is that the Constitution was initially written to protect religion, so it protected folks of all races, but you are a bigot, like racists, because you are freely speaking against folks w/ religious beliefs.

Duh.

P.S. I am a believer. So, I can make the completely uncontroversial point that bigot Andy will be burning in hell for eternity because he doesn't believe.

I know! Ritmo is busy trying to pick sides, though, and say that the side he disagrees with is evil and bad. Now what is going to do? Which person who stands against bigotry but knows the glorious, dazzling array of sensory profundity produced by cocaine will he choose?

The best part is that Ritmo does a lot of marijuana. That's okay, see. That's a good high, because he does it.

No, his argument is that the Constitution was initially written to protect religion, so it protected folks of all races, but you are a bigot, like racists, because you are freely speaking against folks w/ religious beliefs.

The Constitution wasn't written to protect religious people from being called idiots. And I really don't think SM's argument is that I'm a bigot because of the First Amendment. At least I hope not, because that is a silly argument.

Also, I don't know what you mean that the Constitution "protected folks of all races". It clearly didn't.

I'm "speaking against folks w/ religious beliefs" because I'm criticizing a specific idea that they believe. I don't understand your definition of bigotry if that's what makes me a bigot.

No, his argument is that the Constitution was initially written to protect religion, so it protected folks of all races

Wow. Where to begin? The Constitution of 1789 manifestly did not protect people of all races. It took a Civil War and at least three Amendments to get to that.

Your better argument would be to point out that the Constitution does not anywhere protect women, yet women receive a high level of constitutional protection (though not as much as people do for race and religion). Yet there are no protections under the Constitution for sexual orientation. That's pretty inexcusable, isn't it?

As I say, that would be your better argument, but you would never be able to make it, given your moronity and all.

I know! Ritmo is busy trying to pick sides, though, and say that the side he disagrees with is evil and bad. Now what is going to do? Which person who stands against bigotry but knows the glorious, dazzling array of sensory profundity produced by cocaine will he choose?

Alas, the profundity of cocaine, I decided, was like Kali, and would consume me. Even though all pleasure, indeed all of life, consumes and destroys, I came to regard Sweet Cousin Cocaine would eat me up faster than others, so I left it.

In its place I still glow with alcohol, good food, big cocks, beauty, paint, Bach and the occasional cigarette.

However, as a matter of public policy I do see a difference between arguing for repealing the prohibition of non-lethal substances and repealing the prohibition of those which can kill a talented basketball player in his prime.

But others, who confess to arguing for stupid policies, disagree.

It's a matter of priorities. But why talk about priorities with someone who has no principles whatsoever?

Agreed on cocaine. It's something you can do a few times, and then you must leave it to your memories.

I look at all drugs like an amusement park. Take the funnest ride. It's great, but now imagine yourself riding it day after day after day, and feeling a physical desire to ride it but a mental desire not to ride it. Not good.

Just a few days ago I almost bought a bottle for someone. But, I settled on Johnnie Black. I know it's lame and cliche.

I was sure that those folks wouldn't recognize Ardbeg, so that would have failed as a host gift. And, they're almost certainly going to mix it w/ Coke, so the only thing that mattered was the recognition.

Just a few days ago I almost bought a bottle for someone. But, I settled on Johnnie Black. I know it's lame and cliche.

I was sure that those folks wouldn't recognize Ardbeg, so that would have failed as a host gift. And, they're almost certainly going to mix it w/ Coke, so the only thing that mattered was the recognition.

Johnnie Black is a perfectly acceptable and delicious gift, especially for those who would not appreciate a characterful single malt.

I agree that it's not limited to any particular ideology. I think it's ubiquitous. I think it's inescapable and usually quite healthy if not also necessary to human social health.

Humans are social. They band together cooperatively. The notion that this is supposed to happen without regard to identifying "tribe" is foolishness.

It's like altruism supposedly putting a higher virtue on helping people one has no attachment to. Why? One could say it's because a truly altruistic person has transcended humanity. But isn't that another way of saying that their humanity is broken?

Not that tribalism can't manifest in damaging, unhealthy ways, and maybe that's when most people call it tribalism, but the instinct (if I dare use that word) is not, in itself, the least unhealthy. It reflects something people need.

Off on a tangent... and off to bed.

(Also, nice to see you Palladian. It seems I miss seeing you as often lately.)

P.S.It was my point that the Constitution did nothing to prevent the massively racist atrocities that were common place.

You're often stumped when I ask you to "read between the lines."

P.P.S.What do you think I was actually saying when I noted that I can comfortably take my protected place in society when I point out that Andy is destined to burn in hell for all of eternity, but he is a bigot (equal to a racist) when he says that my hell and other beliefs are moronity?

I'd love to see an explanation for how economies develop and a species finds ways to spread from its sequestration on one continent to conquering all seven (and many other environments and challenges) without social interaction.

I'm a pretty anti-social introvert when given the choice, but despite that, I find it very easy and natural to fall into supporting my tribe. All I need is a group of people I like a little and with whom I share some interest, and I'm ready to join their army. I don't usually want hang around them, but I still want to defend them. Is this normal?

Rush won't die in the poorhouse, but it's hard to see him coming out ahead in this affair. If Carbonite goes belly up, it will be even worse for him. Future sponsors will see that if he says something controversial, they will be in a no win position. If they stick with him, they will lose customers. If they cut sponsorship, they will also lose customers. The prudent course for future sponsors is not to be future sponsors. There are other ways to get your message out.....I think Rush crossed the line, but that's part of why I listen to him. I like to hear liberals being unfairly and outageously criticized. However, you can only do so many back flips on the high wire before going splat. He went splat.....If the Dems were truly fans of diversity and free speech, they would be resisting efforts to ban him from the airwaves. This will come around and bite them on the ass. I saw John Stewart tonigh. He had Julianne Moore on his show. They were discussing her portrayal of Sarah Palin in the upcoming film. He went through the entire interview without once insulting Sarah Palin. It was painful to see. He started sweating and having uncontrollage tremors. The withdrawal symptoms were just awful to see....But there you have it. Now that the Dems have gotten on Rush's case, they can no longer call Sarah a dumb cunt, at least for the next two weeks.

In other words, my political predilections, such as they are, are an extension of my very personal sense of being-in-the-world. As all honest humans should admit, and which political persons generally thoroughly misunderstand.

I embrace and yet remain thoroughly distrustful of the power of societies.

As do I. But to a lesser or greater degree, depending on the society or smaller unit within.

It's because humans still cannot always distinguish between free association and coercion.

Do you think this will ever not be the case? You admitted earlier to being drawn to things that can be destructive, at least in excess. And then there is love. Children benefit from their parents' love, but mortality seems to be the inevitable trade-off of sexual reproduction. I don't know if there's a way that this could not be the case.

As an introvert, a savant, a painfully sensitive person and a homosexual, I have learned to both love socialization and yet be extraordinarily wary of it.

That is both sad and enlightening to hear.

I hope one day you will find out what it takes to build or be a part of networks within which there is greater earned (deserved) trust. And without any need to sacrifice individuality, which I equally value.

You admitted earlier to being drawn to things that can be destructive, at least in excess.

I believe that everything under the sun is destructive in excess, except for love.

That is both sad and enlightening to hear.

All truth is both sad and enlightening, in equal measure.

I hope one day you will find out what it takes to build or be a part of networks within which there is greater earned (deserved) trust. And without any need to sacrifice individuality, which I equally value.

I have found this trust, of course, even if in the smallest quantities. It's the only thing that gives me the desire to continue in this breathing world.

I believe that you are an essentially honest person, as I believe of anyone with whom I choose to interact. All the specifics about which we disagree and argue are often a distraction that prevents us from accepting that we're all just trying to survive, in our own way.

You're a good person, Palladian. Thanks for giving me greater insight into how you look at things. I agree with much of what you say, although the specifics where this is not the case either don't matter or are interesting to look at for the different perspective they provide.

I must go to sleep now. I hope the other guy will be able to tolerate this relinquishment of my being as an object for his personal abuse tonight. I hope to read more of what you have to say sometime soon.

If ProFlowers goes back to Rush, reward them by sending a bouquet to Sandra Fluke, with this message enclosed:

"And then there is the Tenth Commandment. 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.' The Ten Commandments are God's basic rules about how we should live — a brief list of sacred obligations and solemn moral precepts.

"The first nine Commandments concern theological principles and social law. But then, right at the end, is 'Don't envy your buddy's cow.' How did that make the top ten? What's it doing there? Why would God, with just ten things to tell Moses, choose as one of those things jealousy about the starter mansion with in-ground pool next door?

"Yet think how important the Tenth Commandment is to a community, to a nation, indeed to a presidential election. If you want a mule, if you want a pot roast, if you want a cleaning lady, don't be a jerk and whine about what the people across the street have — go get your own.

"The Tenth Commandment sends a message to all the jerks who want redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, more government programs, more government regulation, more government, less free enterprise, and less freedom. And the message is clear and concise: Go to hell."

Rush won't die in the poorhouse, but it's hard to see him coming out ahead in this affair. If Carbonite goes belly up, it will be even worse for him. Future sponsors will see that if he says something controversial, they will be in a no win position. If they stick with him, they will lose customers. If they cut sponsorship, they will also lose customers. The prudent course for future sponsors is not to be future sponsors. There are other ways to get your message out....

Sure, there are. But, they all have their weaknesses. Name them off. I pretty much ignore everything on the Internet. TV has to be cute, funny, etc., to be effective, and, as a result, is much more expensive. Dead tree media are imploding, etc. Of course, the Carbonites of the world could go with other talk radio hosts, but who is going to be more effective - Rush or Randi Rhodes (however you spell her name)?

Talk radio is pretty conservative, likely for a number of reasons. One is that argument by frothing at the mouth doesn't last very long. You need to add in logical arguments, and if the left had defensible logical arguments, they would be conservatives. In the end, liberalism is a resort to emotionalism, and that fails on radio (but did, along with a number of questionable boxes of ballots, get Al Franken into the Senate).

Carbonite's loss here is a self inflicted loss, likely a result of liberals trying to benefit financially from conservative talk radio. All they had to do was sit tight, maybe talk about reviewing the situation, ask Rush privately to issue an apology, and they would have been just fine. They panicked by listening to the MSM, which much of Rush's audience doesn't, and ended up getting hammered.

I think that in the end, HBO and Maher will ultimately be the ones hurt the most here financially. I used him as an excuse a couple of months ago for not signing up for HBO. Used to be that they were known for their early play of movies, then of their own movies, and now for frontlining hard left comedians like Bill Maher, George Lopez, etc. in prime time. What does HBO really offer these days that would make it worth it for much of the country to pay for it as a premium service?

"Future sponsors will see that if he says something controversial, they will be in a no win position. If they stick with him, they will lose customers. If they cut sponsorship, they will also lose customers."

Carbonite was losing customers steadily. The day after or so of dropping Rush, they tanked utterly.

The lesson is that, as a business, you should not let yourself be drawn into becoming the pawn of political movements. They don't care about your employees or your bottom line.

Dem partisans might want to consider the optics of their complete overreaction to the criticism of Fluke at this point. Because now people are talking about the actual issues and it isn't that Rush called Fluke a slut.

The day is gone when you can echo-chamber a phony scandal to distract people from addressing uncomfortable questions using Democrat Party operatives posing as reporters to push it with no rebuttal.

It only works for so long and then, when the other side gets heard (and with the internet, we will get heard)the failure of the lefty narrative du jour begins, when the issue of an anti-Constitutional power grab by Obama finally cannot be avoided.

Reasonable people get that with some thought as the lefts lies about the issue are exposed and cannot stand up to the scrutiny.

Witness Obamas 180 degree reversal of his UnConstitutional attempt to bully the Catholic Church. The lefties here on the board won't even address it. Because they have no reasonable answers.

The left screeches that "THE GOP WANTS TO BAN CONTRACEPTIVES AND STEAL YOUR LADY PARTS!11!1!1!"

And the GOP says "No, do what you like, even if its sorta slutty, but pay for it yourselves."

It's not hard to figure out who is being reasonable and who isn't.

So, keep it up lefties. The truth will out and its a long way to Movermber.

It's a description of our black Muslim commie president. Please feel free to correct any element of the description you believe is inaccurate.

You're right to want to talk economics but your bigotry shows

Oh, Mr. Little, how very little you understand. You can defend our black Muslim commie president if you like, but my objection to him is not based on bigotry any more than your support for him represents anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism bigotry.

No, not at all, Mr. Little. I just happen to be one of those people who believes that lying is wrong. And it's particularly troubling to see a Professor of Law like Glenn Reynolds encouraging people to lie.

I guess your side doesn't feel the same way about lying. Your side believes that lying is acceptable as long as it serves a selfish purpose.

I don't think we should get our pants in a twist over a name. It's maybe wrong to call a person a name but on the other hand you have to call them something. Why not a name? Would Anthony Trollope get tired of being called Trollope? Nobody reads his novels any more. He wrote for money rather than love. The whore. At least Fluke is getting attention. Obama called her after she was called a slut and a prostitute (maybe hoping for a date). Trollope would die for that kind of attention.

@I ♥ Willard,I pay attention here enough to know that you aren't participating in good faith...even your screen name is a bad faith statement.Your insistence on characterizing subjective disagreement as "lies" confirms your bad faith intent.I'm sure you are only doing the bidding of your handlers...how much can we really blame someone as brainwashed as you?

But at the very least, there is certainly no need to take your bad-faith, low-integrity nonsense seriously.

Remember to not get too depressed with the upcoming tidal wave of Dem losses this November.

It's "adios muchacho" to Carbonite when my current contract is up. I bought because I heard about it on Rush. I'll leave because there are competitors who stick to providing a service instead of getting embroiled in political wars. So goodby to the jerkoffs at Carbonite.

I am sure you truly believe this statement, but sadly the facts aren't on your side about this. I'm truly sorry about that. Maybe if you had practiced paying attention in school, you wouldn't be struggling with it now. :(

@I ♥ Willard,So you are assuming that no conservative has a problem with what Maher said about Palin, then? You don't think conservatives might just have a general problem with Maher's oft-expressed viewpoints?

Because you must make that assumption to conclude that Instapundit is asking people to lie.

You have been a liberal far too long; you don't even know what a lie is, or what truth is...it is clear you only understand "truthiness".